Someone once told me ...

[Smurlos]

I don't think that a child is born with a 'sexual urge' or tendency - it is something that develops, just like the sexual organs develop over time.

I believe that when a child is born, its first instinct is survival. So you get all the growth and the development of the language and learning faculties and so on.

There may be behavioural qualities that maybe point towards sexual orientation throughout childhood, but this is where I think upbringing i.e. how your mother is towards you plays a part. Because child hood is sort of the time the child becomes a little more independant from its mother than when it was a baby.

Utlimately I don't think there is a 'choice' in the matter. I didn't one day just think 'hmmm am I going to be gay or straight?' - it just happens. You get feelings. I don't think that everyone has urges to try being gay because the way the succession of our kind works is sexual intercourse between a male and female, the meeting of the sperm and the egg, and ultimately the birth of a new being. So the way nature intended was obviously for the male and female to come together, each supplying 50% of the new being's DNA each, so that no new born being is ever the same, and thus eliminating the chance of the race becoming extinct because of one particular gene for instance. Everything has a purpose.

I presume that 'gayness' is a product of one's personality. A bit like one person may loooove peas, but another person doesn't. What one person likes, another doesn't necessarily.

There are probably 101 factors affecting who is going to be gay, bisexual or straight, it's probably a secret of nature we will never figure out. But I don't think there is any one thing that can pinpoint the quality of being gay.

And I don't think that they should be looking at it through the process of 'genes' etc. either like its some kind of disease, when infact I'd assume, it is a portion of somebody's personality - something hardwired in the brain.

[PrettyLittleIcon]

And why women exactly? 'cause they're much more emotional and sensitive and always are reflecting on "who am I" and "what do I really feel". So women go on choosing much more longer than men (that are always too busy for this silly thing prefering to drink some beer or play ther special men's games)

Not all women are like this and I'm sure a lot of guys are emotional and sensitive its just who you are.

I can control my emotions. And if I get annoyed I just walk away and be on my own for a while.

I know a lot of girls that like beer, and is their favourite drink.

[princealbertofb]

Well it's not just about what your sexual orientation is... whether you like boys or girls better to have sex with or a relationship with... It is also to do with gender definitions and roles, which are mostly socially learnt.
Marshlander has a penfriend who is a transgendered person (originally male) who believes she is a woman and who is in love with a woman... so that makes her technically a lesbian. Complicated Victor/Victoria type of situation.

[Dan1089]

You must be psychic.Victor/Victoria is playing on TV right now.It's the scene where that bodyguard type is locked out in the balcony.How very strange PA.

[PrettyLittleIcon]

Well it's not just about what your sexual orientation is... whether you like boys or girls better to have sex with or a relationship with... It is also to do with gender definitions and roles, which are mostly socially learnt.
Marshlander has a penfriend who is a transgendered person (originally male) who believes she is a woman and who is in love with a woman... so that makes her technically a lesbian. Complicated Victor/Victoria type of situation.

I agree

[marshlander]

... So the way nature intended was obviously for the male and female to come together, each supplying 50% of the new being's DNA each, so that no new born being is ever the same, and thus eliminating the chance of the race becoming extinct because of one particular gene for instance. Everything has a purpose.

Sorry, Smurlos, I'm going through a tediously argumentative phase. Perhaps it's the menopause or something. Hopefully I'll grow out of it.

I don't believe that nature "intends" anything. Events take place and consequences result. Nature has no master blueprint. If the consequences confer advantage a new set of events become possible. As I understand it, this is simply natural selection. If nature had intention in the reproductive process what would be the purpose of infertility?

I disagree that everything has a purpose, but I would accept that "everything" (whatever that might mean) has a spectrum of possibilities.

Coming back to something like the main thrust of the discusssion, though, the diversity resulting from the natural selection process is important in the human species. How we deal with difference and diversity is one of the things that sets us apart from other species in the living world. I don't expect you have much experience with hatching chickens, but I would not want to be part of a world where diversity from the majority experience was dealt with in the day-old chick way (i.e. peck it till it dies).

[Smurlos]

Sorry, Smurlos, I'm going through a tediously argumentative phase. Perhaps it's the menopause or something. Hopefully I'll grow out of it.

I don't believe that nature "intends" anything. Events take place and consequences result. Nature has no master blueprint. If the consequences confer advantage a new set of events become possible. As I understand it, this is simply natural selection. If nature had intention in the reproductive process what would be the purpose of infertility?

I disagree that everything has a purpose, but I would accept that "everything" (whatever that might mean) has a spectrum of possibilities.

Coming back to something like the main thrust of the discusssion, though, the diversity resulting from the natural selection process is important in the human species. How we deal with difference and diversity is one of the things that sets us apart from other species in the living world. I don't expect you have much experience with hatching chickens, but I would not want to be part of a world where diversity from the majority experience was dealt with in the day-old chick way (i.e. peck it till it dies).

Haha don't apologise, thats the whole point of a debate.
I was not personifying "nature" in anyway by attributing the quality of it being able to intend mile: I guess I should have used passive voice maybe... I am not very good with my english language hehe.

Either way all I meant was the way the two sexes have developed and their design shows that the main idea is they get together and reproduce.

As for the infertility thing, do we know if this has always been an issue throughout time? Or if the growing proportion of couples having fertility issues nowadays is a result of something human-induced such as mobile phones, pollution, global warming (hey they blame everything else on global warming, why not infertility too?).

I am a believer in science... but some questions arise such as... when you look at what happens with our DNA. Say a molecule of DNA magically developed through a series of chemical reactions millions of years ago. Now I don't know if it's down to a gap in my knowledge or what, but DNA in order to be copied, has to have bonds broken by an enzyme. The DNA strand then has to be matched up with its RNA partners and then pass through a transcription enzyme and ribosomes and then it has to go through dna helicase enzyme so the bonds form again between the two strands. There is so much specificity there, that it makes me think it can't just be coinsidence... but then I think, well if there were some divine being that sorted it all out... why did they make it so that there can be errors... why did they make such a complex system? So yes... I'm not too sure. Anyway i've gone majorly off topic now...

[marshlander]

Haha don't apologise, thats the whole point of a debate.

I'm glad you see it this way

... As for the infertility thing, do we know if this has always been an issue throughout time? Or if the growing proportion of couples having fertility issues nowadays is a result of something human-induced such as mobile phones, pollution, global warming ...

Is there a growing proportion? I don't know the figures. If there is, what about oestrogen in drinking water? I'm so glad I don't live in London!

I am a believer in science... but some questions arise such as... when you look at what happens with our DNA. Say a molecule of DNA magically developed through a series of chemical reactions millions of years ago. Now I don't know if it's down to a gap in my knowledge or what, but DNA in order to be copied, has to have bonds broken by an enzyme. The DNA strand then has to be matched up with its RNA partners and then pass through a transcription enzyme and ribosomes and then it has to go through dna helicase enzyme so the bonds form again between the two strands. There is so much specificity there, that it makes me think it can't just be coinsidence... but then I think, well if there were some divine being that sorted it all out... why did they make it so that there can be errors... why did they make such a complex system? So yes... I'm not too sure. Anyway i've gone majorly off topic now...

Personally I feel on slightly safer ground in matters of philosophy than I do in harder science. However, I have read Richard Dawkins who is unequivocal about the lack of necessity for the involvement of supernatural beings in the process. His argument makes a lot of sense to my uninformed intellect. The natural process is very wasteful, but persistent. Eventually something gets through.

[BiPenny]

Going back to the original topis I believe that women are simply more able to speculate regarding their sexuality than men.
I was once told that all women are at least 2% gay, I think this also goes for men, however were you to ask the average woman on the street 'have you ever considered/wondered what it would be like to sleep with a woman' I believe a large percentage would say yes, were you to ask a man the same question about men a large percentage would say no, BECAUSE IT IS NOT AS WIDELY SOCIALLY ACCEPTED.
Women have a tendency to weight things up and think through the options, men like to make a straightforward decision, this is a vast generalisation but I hope you get my point.

As for the nature nuture debate. I cannot say I have any particular opinion on this. I think it depends on the sort of person you are.

Some people say they knew they were gay/bi from the very outset of their sexual development (ie when I ask the question of my colleague (who I wasnt out to at the time) 'when did you realise you liked boys' he would reply 'probably about the same time you did') some say they didn't realise until later on, after a number of relationships with the opposite sex.

I was interested in boys from the age of about 10. However I can honestly say I never considered women attractive or in a sexual manner until I was at least 17, if not older. At this point I put it down to a phase of curiosity but since the age of about 19/20 I realised it is something more. To me this would point to both nature and nurture aspects.

Apologies if this post doesnt make sense. My blood sugar level is somewhere in my toes right now and I really should consider some food!!

[fjp999]

Some people say they knew they were gay/bi from the very outset of their sexual development (ie when I ask the question of my colleague (who I wasnt out to at the time) 'when did you realise you liked boys' he would reply 'probably about the same time you did') some say they didn't realise until later on, after a number of relationships with the opposite sex.

Apologies if this post doesnt make sense. My blood sugar level is somewhere in my toes right now and I really should consider some food!!

It must have been around the 4th grade where I developed a sexual curiosity. Definitely thought I was bi at first... all the Yummy friends... took about a year to decide I liked Brian better than Brenda.

Thru uni I did experiment with a couple women but always knew I was "gay". Never say never...

@BiP... hope you got that level evened out :eek: